|
>> Firstly, the internet really needs some kind of treaty (although I have no
>> desire for it to be regulated) the current HCA case involving Gutnick proves
>> this. Need? Need? And what will happen to the Internet if no such treaty is
forthcoming? Treaties are the things that world governments are made of, and
stuff that kills competition. The Gutnik decision may have been stupid, but it is also largely irrelevant.
People will just disengage their cyber-identities from their flesh-identities. >> Such a decision, which I do not agree with, would be unenforceable in
>> nations which have free speech enshrined. Agreed but we don't need a treaty for this, anymore than we need a
treaty allowing us to say bad things about Allah or Mohammad. We just need to
know who the savages are, and avoid the regions in which they can initiate
force against you. Unfortunately one such state of barbarism is Australia, but we need to
focus on changing Australia's laws (via the mindset of the people), not
to set up agreements with corrupt dictatorships which gives them
any kind of credibility. >> Anyway, AbL CJ reckons that your web page is like your house, if you see
>> something you don't like leave (although this shouldn't stop authorities
>> investegating suspicious activites if they have proper authorisation), and
>> so what you publish is like having conversation, unless say you are a media
>> outlet anyway, or there are some notable features that distinguish you as a
>> media outlet (e.g, commercial domain name, advertising you make money out of
>> and so on. Frankly I don't see the need for defamation laws at all in the age of the
Internet. If you want to bad-mouth someone, do it. You will be judged on the
things you say, and if you say outrageous things which you can't prove, people
will judge you accordingly. There are some stupid people who will believe it anyway, but that's OK -
stupidity is their right as long as they don't initiate force against me. >> Such policing of prostitution is utterly stupid. It isn't going to stop well
>> developed Japanese girls getting money out of toey old businessmen, and they
>> target the wrong person if they are harmed anyway. I'm not saying it's right
>> for a 44 year old man to have sex with a thirteen year old, or is it going to
>> be tolerated by most people, but cases like these need to be judged on their
>> own merit - wether each girl had proper control over their
>> faculties. Basically, prostitution shouldn't be policed, if they are not
>> prostitutes, and do get lured by a person taking advantage of them, chances
>> are, they will complain. This can't be stopped either, commonsense stops this,
>> if you think your kids are gullible, get netnanny or whatever. Unfortunately in many places in the world, parents prostitute their children,
who do not make an informed choice about their actions. I get the impression though, that the 13yo Japanese schoolgirls do not fit into
this category - they are well aware of what they are doing, and the benefits
that the money gets them. I believe the age of consent in Japan is also very
low (13?), which puts an interesting slant on things. Are they are old enough
to choose to have sex, but not old enough to accept money for it? >> As for taxes, taxing fixed resources and consumption would catch them out in
>> the end. It's the kind of transaction which is not easily taxed. BTW - do you regard land as a 'fixed resource'? Do you think that
consumption is equivalent to 'tradable utility'?
| 
